Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

Order. May I point out to hon. Gentlemen—they are predominantly gentlemen, although there are a few hon. Ladies—that I will begin calling the Front Benchers at about 10.30 am? With that in mind, I call Sir Alan Haselhurst.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party and with you in the Chair, Mr Flello. I wish all hon. Members present and everyone else a happy Burns day.

It is customary to acknowledge and congratulate those who secure debates in Westminster Hall, but today is slightly different. I cannot merely offer ordinary congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). After all, he has managed to do what the Government failed to do—bring about a debate on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. As the bard said:

“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,

Gang aft agley”.

I will touch on the delay shortly, but in the meantime I tip my hat to the hon. Gentleman, a colleague on the R and R Joint Committee.

Today’s debate has been interesting, and I shall reflect briefly on what has been said. The hon. Member for Rhondda set out very well many of the issues that have arisen following decades of neglect—first by Governments at the time when they were responsible through the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and then by Parliament itself. Cheekily, I will mention the poll this week that the hon. Gentleman cited: 25% of those polled would happily see the place bulldozed. However, I feel that that is more an indictment of its incumbents than of the building itself. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a very good speech to set out his case. He did that very well.

The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), a colleague on the Finance Committee, was absolutely right: being elected is about doing a job, not about doing it in a particular building. He made a very good speech, as did the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who made a very salient point: the work is not for us. We can be sceptical about the project and criticise elements of it, but we must be clear—this work is not for us; we are merely tenants of the building. I say again that at the present time I am campaigning for my eviction—I will leave that one hanging.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), another colleague from the Finance Committee, highlighted the decades-long neglect of the building and its appalling disabled access—he was absolutely right to place that on the record. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), a colleague from the R and R Committee, made a typically witty speech and a very powerful case for his position. That is on the record very strongly.

The hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) put forward their case. I disagree with it, but they have put their points across and I am sure that they will also do so when the matter comes to the Floor of the House, whenever that may be.

For me, today’s debate is not about the rights or wrongs of the project. The hon. Member for Rhondda will, I am sure, acknowledge that despite my early stated scepticism about the project, I did my best to be constructive in my role on the Joint Committee. I helped to secure a public consultation and some significant improving amendments to the text of the report. There is no doubt in my mind that if the two Houses vote for the project to go ahead, the recommended full decant is the best way to proceed.

For me, a sceptic about the project, and for the hon. Member for Rhondda, a champion of the project, the situation is clear: delaying the debate and the vote does not help anyone. I struggle to understand why the Government have been delaying it. First, we were told that there would be a debate and a vote before Christmas; then it was to be yesterday. Are the Government so concerned about the objections being raised by Conservative Members who are coalescing around the idea that somehow MPs could remain in the Palace while the works are going on?

Some hon. Members are worried that if Parliament does not sit in the Palace for a time, it will not return; others are concerned that customs may be replaced. It is an idea built purely on sentiment. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden called it romance. It is a romance and sentimentality about a building. The idea does not make engineering or financial sense, as was explained so well by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Working around Parliament sitting in the Palace would add considerable time, cost and risk to the project. The savings from not building a temporary Chamber in Richmond House would be outweighed by the added time to get the work done, the added engineering complexity and the considerable added risk. It is now just shy of five months since our report was published. I say to the Government: get on with the debate and get on with the vote.

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I had a bowl of porridge oats in deference to the bard this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

Order. With the greatest respect to the hon Lady, you really cannot come into a debate while the wind-ups are taking place and expect to take part.

[Michael Ellis]

We need to cover the issue that the ongoing maintenance cost the taxpayer £50 million last year. All told, some 40% of the mechanical and engineering systems will be at an unacceptably high risk of failure by 2020, and five years after that the figure will have risen to 50%. In other words, we are just eight years away from being in a situation in which half the Palace’s systems are so dilapidated that they could cause a major emergency that stops Parliament’s work and forces our evacuation without warning, perhaps overnight. For all those reasons, it is clear that we cannot pass the buck any longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

3. If the Government will establish a public inquiry into Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ contract with Concentrix.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

9. If the Government will establish a public inquiry into Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ contract with Concentrix.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

The independent National Audit Office is carrying out an inquiry into the Concentrix contract and it plans to publish its report in early 2017. That is in addition to Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee scrutiny, which has been extensive to date and will no doubt be extensive in the future.

[Jane Ellison]

The chief executive of HMRC addressed that particular issue in one of his evidence sessions to a Select Committee. I hope the House will be pleased to hear that HMRC has taken back and completed all 181,000 cases from Concentrix and has now cleared most of the mandatory reconsiderations. [Interruption.] There are of course issues to consider. That is why the National Audit Office is carrying out its inquiry, which is already under way, and the Government will of course respond to its report in due course.

[Robert Flello]

The Concentrix scandal left huge numbers of people in hardship, and some of them are still paying off the debts to loan sharks that they took out to see them through. Ministers must have seen the complaints letters, and they must have seen what was in the media. Were they asleep at their desks? Were they just caught napping? Concentrix, HMRC and the Minister at the time need to be held responsible for this, and we need a proper inquiry.

[Jane Ellison]

I would make the point to the hon. Gentleman that a proper inquiry is exactly what the National Audit Office will be undertaking, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and her Committee will have that report in front of them in due course. This matter will be properly looked at in some detail. Over the course of the contract, considerable savings were made for the taxpayer in relation to fraud and error, but it is true that things went badly wrong towards the end of the contract, which is why swift action was taken.

Draft Double Taxation Relief and INternational Tax Enforcement (Turkmenistan) Order 2016

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 General Committees

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I will not delay the Committee too long, but I wish to clarify a couple of points and build on some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde.

It would be very helpful to have some information on the scale of UK involvement in Turkmenistan. My hon. Friend asked about the potential loss or gain to the Exchequer. As the Minister said in her comments, Turkmenistan wishes to expand its own economy. It would be helpful to understand what that means in terms of how many British businesses and individuals are in Turkmenistan and, conversely, how many members of the Turkmenistan population in the UK are active in business or commerce more generally. How many of their companies are here? That would give us the scale of the issue. It would also be helpful to understand the trend. Has that number remained static for a few years or has there been an increase?

How confident is the Minister that the Turkmenistan tax authorities are as rigorous as we generally hope and expect Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be? The statutory instrument deals with enforcement around compliance. Are we confident that the Turkmenistan tax authorities will be strict in ensuring that businesses and individuals will be compliant with their requirements?

A point already discussed at some length, but which bears repeating, is that of the words that we use every day. It seems very strange that the last line of the explanatory memorandum on a piece of legislation that is by its very nature regulatory would state:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because double taxation agreements are not regulatory in nature.”

It is regulatory—that is its nature—and therefore an impact assessment would have been a very good thing to have, if only because it would provide a little bit more of that bright sunshine that disinfects things and shows them up. I look forward to the Minister’s answers on those issues.

Draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2015

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 General Committees

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

All of them.

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, all those large companies have done amazing work with food banks. I know that from my constituency and from my time on the Front Bench as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

For small charities, such as St Vincent de Paul in my local church and other Catholic churches, or for people donating to the Sainsbury’s appeal—a packet of cereal, a four-pack of beans or whatever it might be—there should be a mechanism to enable small donations to be match-funded or gift-aided. That would be interesting and innovative, given that so many people are now choosing to donate in kind rather than in cash. Will the Minister tell us how he plans to take things forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your charitable comments before the sitting kicked off. It is always a delight to see you in the Chair.

The proposals are welcome. I agree with some of the comments that have been made, so I will try not to dwell on mine for too long. These feel like “widow’s mite” proposals, designed to support donations from the people who might be least able to donate, whose donation is a large one to them but perhaps not to the charity concerned.

I have a couple of questions. First, where did the £8,000 figure come from? It seems a little random. Why not £7,500 or £10,000? What was the rationale, and is £8,000 a step towards £10,000? If so, the Minister’s comments would be welcome.

To echo what has been said about advertising the scheme to the smallest of charities and addressing its complexities, I know from a previous existence outside this place that the smallest charities often have staff and volunteers who perform many different roles and wear many different hats. If one of those many hats involves fathoming their way through HMRC forms—I have experience of working for the Inland Revenue, and I know how complicated it can be—the forms for this scheme may well end up in the drawer with all the other difficult-to-deal-with pieces of paper while they get on with doing what the charity was set up to do. Will the Minister comment, ideally here in the Committee but if not by letter to Committee members, on how that complexity can be addressed and how the Government will advertise to the smallest charities?

Finally, comments have been made about donations of Oyster cards and food that is donated to food banks. Given that we are now a few weeks from Christmas, and that because of the season people will be putting an extra tin or packet into their supermarket trolley, can the Minister announce something this side of Christmas, even though the legislation might have to play catch-up? That would prove welcome to the people who want to share what little or largesse they have at this season of good will and cheer to all.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

That is simply not true—and if it were true, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party sign up to our spending plans in 2007?

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I came into this House in 2005, and right up until the crash, week in, week out Conservative Members were saying in the Chamber and in Committee meetings that we were killing the banks—that we were stifling them with overregulation and we needed to weaken it. I also remember them coming to the House week in, week out saying they wanted more schools and hospitals in their constituencies; they wanted more spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Meacher]

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman—although I am not inviting him to come back in—how he would explain the fact that in the latest quarter the growth rate was 0.4%, up from 0.3%. In the last three quarters it has gone down from 0.9% to 0.6%, and then to 0.3% or 0.4%. It was clearly a short-term growth surge, which is now fading.

We all regard productivity as crucial, but the UK’s investment as a percentage of GDP is now among the lowest in the world at barely 14%. By the time depreciation is netted off the growth figure, we are actually down at just 2.5%, which hardly even keeps up with our rising population.

Why does the OBR’s Budget report forecast a never-ending decline in Britain’s share of world exports, even compared with 2014, when this country experienced the biggest proportionate balance of payments current account decline since 1830? Why have the Government squeezed the economy so hard that they are now looking to a steep rise in household borrowing as the main source of future demand? Dangerously, the borrowing level already exceeds £2 trillion and may well be the source of the next economic crisis.

For all those reasons, the Chancellor’s boasts about the state of the economy do not bear even superficial scrutiny. Nor is his explanation of the cause of the economic crisis any more truthful. He continually lambasts the last Labour Government for overspending, but their economic record actually shows the opposite. The largest budget deficit under the Blair and Brown Governments in the 11 years from 1997 to 2008, before the crash, was 3.3% of GDP. The Thatcher and Major Governments ratcheted up budget deficits in excess of that in 10 of their 18 years. Who were the profligate ones? It was not Labour.

Then there is the question of which party has handled better the enormous rise in the deficit, caused by the bankers and the international recession. Again, it is valuable to look at the economic record. Alistair Darling, the last Labour Chancellor, gave the economy a big fiscal stimulus worth nearly 5% of GDP, allowing the automatic stabilisers to work and bringing forward public investment projects worth more than £30 billion.

[Robert Flello]

Would that be the same Alistair Darling who said that we should halve the deficit between 2010 and 2015, and who was lambasted by the Conservative party for proposing such a measure?

[Mr Meacher]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will come on to comparing what the Government have achieved with what the Chancellor said in 2010.

Bearing in mind that it takes between 12 and 18 months for Budget measures to work their way through the economy fully, we should remember that Alistair Darling cut the deficit from its peak of £154 billion to just £114 billion by the fourth quarter of 2011—a cut of £40 billion in fewer than two years at a rate of £20 billion a year. The current Chancellor, however, through his successive austerity Budgets, slowed that deficit reduction to a trickle. Today it is still £90 billion, which represents a reduction of £24 billion in three years at a rate of £8 billion a year. If he wanted to reduce the deficit as efficiently and as fast as possible, he has clearly failed. But of course, his real aim all along has been to shrink the state and squeeze the public sector. The deficit has merely been a convenient pretext to enable him to do so.

Now the Chancellor is telling us that he will eliminate the structural deficit by 2019-20. Judging by the fact that he boasted that he would achieve that by this year, when it is still a whopping £90 billion, we can take that with a fair pinch of salt. His Budget forecasts assume a 2.5% a year growth rate all the way to 2020, but with the £25 billion of further expenditure and benefit cuts now being imposed on the economy, we are likely to see a reprise of what has happened in the past five years. The reimposed austerity will flatten growth, exactly as it did from 2010 to 2012, when it was relieved only by postponing austerity to generate a short 18-month economic surge in 2013-14. As I have explained, that surge has now deflated. That pattern is likely to be reproduced in the next five years. I fear that we will have the worst of both worlds—a short-lived growth spurt that fizzles out and is achieved only through a further postponement of deficit reduction extending well into the medium-term future.

The most fundamental question is: what is the right way to deal with a large deficit? We all agree that it is far too large and has to be reduced. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious, but one that is not publicly stated, that there are two ways of doing that—either by cutting expenditure or by increasing income. An individual does not have that option, of course, but the state does, because it controls the momentum of the economy through either expanding or contracting it. The Chancellor chose exclusively to pursue the latter because it suited his political ends of shrinking the state, but economically, it has been dire—the impoverishment of a quarter of the population and the generation of 350 food banks, rather like a third world country, while cutting the deficit by only a marginal amount.

Historically, all the evidence is against the Chancellor. The reduction of large deficits by both the US and Sweden in the 1990s occurred as a result of sustained growth policies. Above all, we have the precedent of Britain in 1945, when the debt was 260% of GDP—three times higher than the 80% it is today. That did not prevent the Attlee Government from introducing the NHS and the welfare state, building 300,000 houses a year, reconstructing the country’s broken infrastructure and, above all, restoring full employment, with the deficit steadily decreasing to 60% over the next 30 years.

The Chancellor has not only failed to cut the deficit by much, but his legacy will be that he fundamentally chose the wrong way to do it, for the wrong reasons, with huge, irrecoverable losses to UK growth and output.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). Like him, I represent an area whose heritage is in mining, steel and iron, and that has similarly warm-hearted and welcoming people. I thank him for his tribute to his predecessor, Pamela Nash, and for opening his speech with a quote from John Smith, whose premature death was a sad loss to all of us in politics. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful maiden speech that demonstrated values and passion, which indicates that he will bring a great deal to the House.

I want to congratulate the Chancellor—[Interruption.] There is some dissent among my hon. Friends, but he did well to put the issue of low pay in the headlines. He is right that we need to tackle the scandal of low pay, and he was right when he stole the words of the TUC in saying that Britain needs a pay rise. The question is whether his measures meet that challenge. Any increase in wages for struggling families has to be a good thing. That was why Labour introduced the national minimum wage.

[Robert Flello]

Did my hon. Friend spot that when the Chancellor said that the nation needs a pay rise, that did not apply to public sector workers with their 1% rises for four years?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and other colleagues have made that point forcefully in this debate.

As we have been reminded today, Labour’s introduction of the national minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives. I am delighted that they now apparently embrace it. It ended the scandal of poverty pay, providing a safety net below which wages should not fall. But for too many people, the national minimum wage has become the norm, not a safety net, as have zero-hours contracts and part-time hours for those who want full-time work. Alongside those setting up real businesses, there has been a growth in bogus self-employment, particularly in sectors such as construction. Uncertainty has replaced job security, and it has all been aimed at reducing labour costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain how people can choose not to take a tax break.

The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) rightly spoke forcefully about small businesses. I do a lot of work with small businesses in my constituency. They are a driver of growth. When there is any increase in pay, they face a challenge, as does the voluntary sector. They need support, but the Government and the Budget have got it wrong. Support should not have been provided through a greater cut to corporation tax; it should have been provided to small businesses by further cuts to business rates.

The Prime Minister is right that company profits should not be subsidised by the public purse. If he is serious, why not tax listed companies that fail to pay the real living wage to recoup the cost? If he is serious about tackling poverty pay, what about strengthening labour market enforcement? We know, for example, that thousands of workers do not even get the national minimum wage in the care sector because employers refuse to pay for travelling time. We debated that in the last Parliament. Ministers admitted that the practice was widespread and said it was illegal, but nothing is happening to chase down those rogue employers and bring them to book.

[Robert Flello]

On that point, will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not because of time—I am sorry.

On the question of the care sector, will the Government find the resources to support local councils—they have been hit harder than any other part of the public sector—in meeting the cost of increasing the national minimum wage and paying workers what they are legally due?

The Government are right to respond to the need to give people a pay rise and have opened a debate, but they will need to do much more to make the difference that working families need, because this Budget fails to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government, and sometimes previous Governments, have governed on the basis of what London and the south-east think, forgetting there are about 45 million people in this country outside London and the south-east. Any Government pursuing an economic policy should remember that.

As many Members have mentioned, the Budget contains cuts to tax credits that leave the poorer worse off. I will not waste everybody’s time repeating the figures that others have already mentioned, but I thought it interesting that, despite the Government’s talk of manufacturing, only once in the Budget did they talk about exports. This country, being a trading nation historically, thrives on exports, so I am surprised that a Government who want to improve the economy did not talk much about exports.

[Robert Flello]

I am listening intently to my hon. Friend, but there is another side to it: the UK is being flooded with cheap imports subsidised by overseas Governments. This Government are not acting strongly enough to deal with the issue at the point of entry or to address the safety of some of these imports.

[Mr Cunningham]

I am sure you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when we were on the Trade and Industry Committee, we discovered that the Americans were using their defence budget for research and development. The private sector benefited from that because it did not carry that overhead of research and development, which can be at least 50% of any company’s budget and even more than wages. I agree with my hon. Friend, therefore, that the Government should be looking at that.

The Chancellor’s boast—if you want to put it like that—about the living wage is, when we actually analyse it, a con. The living wage as proposed by the Living Wage Foundation is 60p an hour higher than the Chancellor’s proposed amount, and much more inside London—although I do not have the exact figure for London. His proposals have even been criticised by the Living Wage Foundation. The cost of living varies between regions, and for those on low pay, each penny matters. We can only assume that he is rebranding the national minimum wage to muddy the waters. It is political smoke and mirrors to avoid comparisons with the recommendations of that independent charity and to avoid criticism of his low-pay economy. Once again, he has also ignored young people by excluding under-25s from the proposals.

The massive cuts to tax credits will utterly undermine any positive outcomes from the increase to the minimum wage and leave 13 million families worse off, according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis, which has also shown that the poorest will be negatively impacted far more than the well-off. Once again, the low-paid suffer. Much is paid in tax credits because of the Chancellor’s low-pay economy, but slashing tax credits will not make the problem of low pay go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

This was a shambolic, shameful, pitiful Budget, more interested in grabbing headlines, trying to get the Chancellor in the slot for a future place in No. 10 and trying to lay political traps. This was not a Budget for the future of Britain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) had it down to a T: this is a Budget to provide cover for the Chancellor to shrink the size of the state. That is all that this has been about.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills talked about security, but security for who? There is certainly no security for the working poor of this country, those on zero-hours contracts or the people who provide care on the minimum wage who do not get paid for their travelling time or travelling costs, who have to provide their own uniforms and who quite often have to contribute towards any training they receive, if they are lucky enough to get any. In short, this was a Budget providing no security whatever for the poorest, the most vulnerable or the weakest in our society, but plenty of security for multimillionaires looking to pass on assets and for other people.

The Secretary of State also talked about this great plan that the Government have got. They had a great plan in 2010 that was supposed to pay down the deficit over five years. That great plan failed to do that because it stalled the economy for three and a half years—three and a half years to get back to the same level of growth we had in May 2010. So much for hard work rewarded. No matter what the Chancellor thinks, there are people who work very long hours who can only dream of limiting their hours to those in the working time directive and who can only dream of a decent wage and being able to come back to a home that they can afford to live in. Hard work rewarded? There has been a lot of hard work from those people and very little reward for what they do.

I want to take a quick canter through some of the measures in the Budget. Much has been made about the supposedly national living wage. What an absolute con! The living wage has been put at £7.85 or £9.15 in London. The aspiration over the term of this Parliament will be to reach £9 by 2020.

So talk about this being a living wage is simply not the case. The proposal for it to be set at £7.20 is already well short of the necessary £7.85. As has been said many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), setting the living wage takes into account tax credits and additional support. Actually, the real living wage should be recast at a higher figure now that so much of people’s tax credits has been wiped out. This aspiration for what amounts to a rebranded minimum wage is nonsense.

To pick up on an earlier exchange, many employers have, sadly, seen the national minimum wage as a reason to dumb down wages rather than to use it as a baseline. Here there is an issue with tax credits because some employers have indeed said, “Hang on, let the state subsidise our profits and we’ll pay the minimum wage.” Those self-same employers will not now say, “Well, we should not have done that even though we did, but we are now going to put the minimum wage up to a proper living wage level”. Of course not. They will keep people working on the same minimum wage and see that their workforce are worse off on account of the reduction in tax credits.

Yet again, this is all about pulling the rug from under the working poor. The Chancellor makes great play of how the Government want to help people in work. These are people in work; they are people who are doing their best and working very long hours, but they are having the rug pulled from under them.

We hear talk about tackling aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, yet this Government have made various attempts to deal with it. We have seen various attempts to introduce general anti-avoidance type provision, but none of them had teeth and none was really designed to address the situation. I remember from when I was a tax and finance adviser in a previous life that people were capable of coming up with schemes to get round legislation within minutes. The Government have known about this for a long time; this is not new. To be fair to the Government—I rarely try to be fair to this particular Government, but I will be on this occasion—from time immemorial, Governments have not seized the opportunity to provide for proper anti-avoidance measures that will have teeth and will work. There are simple ways of achieving that.

As we have heard, reductions in public spending are about trying to take us back to a small state. The proposal to increase personal allowances, much heralded at the Dispatch Box, sounds wonderful, but it is all jam tomorrow. It is a £400 increase in the personal allowance, which is nowhere near the level it should be and nowhere near the level necessary to provide a genuine living wage in the sense of a basic amount that people need to live on. People will continue to earn less than they need to survive—and will be taxed on it, thrown into the bargain. Raising the threshold for higher rate taxation and raising the personal allowances has provided double help for those on higher incomes, who will see less of their income taxed.

[Nia Griffith]

Does my hon. Friend suspect that the Chancellor has deliberately renamed this “the living wage” so that he can break the promise of taking everybody on the national minimum wage out of tax?

[Robert Flello]

Absolutely. That could well be one of the motives behind it: it is certainly not about giving a genuine living wage to people, and it is certainly not about ensuring that people who work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week just to make ends meet will actually be able to secure a decent living wage. As I say, £7.20 from next April is already short of the £7.85 needed to take tax credit changes into account.

Let us move on to some of the Chancellor’s real friends in all this and consider inheritance tax and the increase to a £1 million threshold. How many people will benefit? It will be a tiny number, and that has to be set against the millions of people who are, to quote the Secretary of State’s words, “hard work rewarded”. It is nonsense, and it shows where the Chancellor’s thoughts lie and who he is really concerned about.

The reduction in corporation tax is another issue. On the face of it, it might seem very good. We already have one of the most competitive rates of corporation tax, but what about the small businesses that are not corporations or not incorporated companies? What about those small businesses that, as sole traders or partnerships, are the lifeblood of our country? What of the small businesses that do not pay corporation tax, for which it is not an issue?

Another item on this long list of measures is the introduction of a supplementary tax on banking sector profit versus the bank levy. I suspect—and I fear that I am right—that more smoke and mirrors has been going on in respect of what the levy was levied on and what profits will be subject to the supplementary tax; I suspect that this will work in favour of the banks.

The increase in insurance premium tax is another measure that will hit those on the lowest incomes. The Minister shakes his head, but there are no two ways about it. People who are already stretching their budgets to try to afford their contents insurance, for instance, will then be hit by a massive increase in insurance premium tax, from 6% to 9.5%.

As for the proposals for the Chancellor’s good friends, those with non-domiciled status, they are welcome on the face of it, but how soon will it be before someone comes up with a great ruse to get around the “15 of the previous 20 years” residence rule? How soon will it be before someone says, “That is OK; I will go abroad for a year, and then restart my clock”? How soon will it be before someone takes advantage of some scheme or other? Why not be more assertive, and take much stronger action?

I am conscious that time is beating me again, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to draw attention to a few more points. There are to be more apprenticeships, but the question is the quality of those apprenticeships. The ending of student maintenance grants will hit the poorest yet again—in this instance, the poorest students. I have already made my point about the public sector pay increase.

Buried among these measures is the reduction in the backdating of housing benefit from six months for working-age claimants and three months for pensioners to a maximum of four weeks. It is not really about reducing benefit; it is about saying, “If you were not quick enough to spot the benefit that you were able to claim, or if the paperwork was not processed, or if you are a pensioner who struggles with paperwork, you will lose out.” That will save £10 million, which is outrageous.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman speed up a bit? I shall have to impose a limit on speeches if he does not finish his speech very quickly.

[Robert Flello]

I thought it important to put that point on the record, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you will have noted, I have just discarded most of my speech.

Let me say just four more words. Well, eight: infrastructure spending, fuel duty, investigation of immoral or illegal economic issues such as the farming of dogs and cats, and a huge shortage of commercial drivers. Where was the Government’s help when it came to putting more drivers into the economy?

Thank you for your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Productivity

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It is important to recognise that productivity problems are not the same across every single sector. Some sectors are managing to break through and making a difference, perhaps relative to other sectors in other parts of the world. It is important that we focus on apprenticeships and skills, but the quality of those apprenticeships is key as well. I will say more about skills, on which we have just had an Opposition day debate.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Some apprenticeships are undoubtedly very good, but I am aware of some in north Staffordshire and the wider area that are little more than “YTS rebranded”—people come in, work for a period almost as exploited slave labour, are then kicked out, and the next batch of apprentices are brought in. There are some very good apprenticeships, but some are frankly scandalous.

[Chris Leslie]

I agree that we need far better scrutiny of the nature of apprenticeships and of skills and training. We sometimes have a blanket approach that all schemes or tax incentives are the same and—this is the classic Whitehall problem—leave them without going into the detail of how they add value and of how quality fits in. I would advocate a better look at the quality of such investments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

As one industry declines, others will have to fill the gap. It is also important to recognise that multiple aspects of energy activity and energy markets are coming on stream and we need to ensure that we develop them and exploit new opportunities for our country, for energy security and for our future economic prosperity.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time. I was hoping that he might touch on the question of workers on zero-hours contracts. They have seen their salaries driven down to minimum wage levels, they might have to supply their own uniform, and, if they are an agency worker, they might not know from one day to the next what they will be doing and where they will be doing it. Is it any wonder that their productivity is depressed?

[Chris Leslie]

That is a crucial point. A far healthier environment is one in which the workforce feel valued and that they have a stake in the output, not just in their wages but as partners in the company or in the firm. Those are the sorts of discussions we must have about the economy we want for the long term.

The Chancellor faces a fork in the road, and this is very relevant as the emergency Budget on 8 July approaches. Will he take an ideological approach to public services and public investment or will he join a consensus that productivity, growth and living standards should be at the heart of those Budget choices? We are now hearing some practical options that are open to the Chancellor if he is serious about boosting productivity.

We need further reform of incentives to encourage research and development, support scientific discovery and underpin long-term financial backing for projects that do not necessarily always yield near-term returns. We need to break the politicking about infrastructure and flush through the pipeline of stalled projects. Ministers should feel free to steal the idea of a more independent and evidence-led approach to infrastructure prioritisation as advocated so eloquently by Sir John Armitt in his report for us before the election. We need to sweat the authorisations already voted for by Parliament to underwrite infrastructure development with Government-backed guarantees, which are so woefully underutilised at present. We need skills and training to flourish and not fall victim to short-term and ill-thought-through budget decisions driven by a political timetable. We need serious action on housing supply to help working people with the choices they face in work and to support new employment opportunities as they arise; and we need clarity that local enterprise partnerships will get the immediate devolved powers required to unlock local growth—not political delays because the Chancellor takes exception to a particular form of local governance arrangement.

We need an early decision in response to the Davies commission report on airport capacity. It is due imminently, but Ministers are already starting to kick it into the long grass. Apparently they are only going to address this vital question at the end of this year at the earliest. We also need real announcements, in short order, on specific rail interconnectivity between towns and cities. Those are some of the priorities that deserve urgent attention at the top of Government.

Will the Chief Secretary shed some light on the thinking of his great and glorious leader, the First Secretary of State, or will we have to wait for this agenda to fit into a Downing Street soundbite before it gets any attention? I genuinely wish the Chief Secretary luck in gaining favour with the Prime Minister-in-waiting, because right now we have a Chancellor distracted by his political ambitions who cannot even be bothered to debate productivity, let alone remember to mention it in his Budget speech. Britain cannot afford this issue being neglected any longer, and we will keep reminding the Chancellor—when he is here—of his responsibilities until real action is taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Every week, another new task comes from the Labour party for the OBR. Child poverty is down by 300,000. That is the record and those are the numbers that have been produced. We believe that the OBR has had a very good start as an organisation. We value it and believe that it has an important future, and we will not jeopardise it by letting Labour use it for party political games.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his fiscal policies on the level of child poverty.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

The Government are protecting vulnerable groups while taking action to tackle the record deficit we inherited. Work remains the best route out of poverty and the Budget took action to support families and to make the tax and welfare system fairer, further increasing the income tax personal allowance to £10,500 in 2015-16, which will take 3.2 million people on low incomes out of tax altogether.

[Robert Flello]

I was amazed by the answer given by the Minister’s colleague to the previous question, so perhaps I will try her on the same point. Are she and her colleague in the least bit troubled by the fact that the IFS forecasts that child poverty will rise by 400,000 during this Parliament?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to ending child poverty by 2020. Under this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, child poverty has fallen by more than 300,000 since 2010. The best route out of poverty is work and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support that route.

Consumer Rights Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Most crucially, fees are often charged not just when a tenancy is first signed, but when it is repeated. What will the Minister do about the repeat application of fees? She will recall that, in the last debate on Report, we discussed a tenant who had tweeted us live to say that they had been charged £1,300 to change the names on a tenancy. The Government new clauses do not recognise that fees are applied not just when a tenancy is started, but when it is renewed.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I came across a case recently in which a tenancy was repeated. All that happened was that a copy of the original agreement was reprinted and sent off to be signed. There was all of about 30 pages of printing, which, even at the most expensive local high street printing outfit, would not amount to anywhere near the couple of hundred pounds that the agency was charging for that simple job.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the kind of repeat fees we are seeing, which any legislation must address. More importantly—this relates to the proposals that we have made—I would wager that the landlord was also charged in that transaction for the same amount of photocopying. Fees are clearly being charged when a contract is repeated and that needs to be addressed.

New clause 24 talks about how a fee can be calculated if the amount is not yet known. Will the Minister set out what protection will be available to consumers if they miscalculate the amount based on the information that is provided? How clear does the information of the letting agency have to be?

All the issues that I have raised relate to enforcement. New clause 28 provides the power to impose a £5,000 penalty. It would be very interesting to hear what kind of enforcement process the Minister envisages. We talked in Committee about the cuts to trading standards—the Cinderella service that does not even have enough buttons at the moment to address the many issues the Government expect it to address under the consumer rights legislation.

The Minister talked in passing about the letting agent redress scheme. I must pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hayter, who argued passionately for the redress scheme because of her experience of these issues. It is not clear to the Opposition quite what will happen. Will the Minister therefore set out what she thinks will happen if an agent does not display their fees clearly and what kind of enforcement action will be taken? She talked about issuing civil penalties. Will those penalties go to the tenant who has had to pay £1,300 for the photocopying to be repeated, but who was not told about that when they signed up to the letting agency?

All those questions speak to the fundamental challenge that we are dealing with, which is that information, although welcome, is not enough to deal with the fundamental problem of the impact that excessively high agency fees have on a person’s ability to rent a property. As we said in the previous debate on Report, it is a bit like telling someone who is tied to the train tracks what the timetable is for the trains. The fundamental issue that we have to deal with is the consequence of agents being able to charge tenants such fees.

That is why we tabled new clause 30. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is an entirely reasonable response to the Government new clauses. New clause 30 would do two things. First, it would require the Government to produce a report on

“the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies”.

I am sure that everybody in the House would welcome such a report, because it would at least give some depth to the conversations that we have all been having about this issue. Secondly, it would commit the Government to taking action to

“prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”

Surely, if fees are pushing people out of their homes and distorting the market in private rented accommodation, it is in the interests of all consumers and, indeed, landlords that we act.

I hope that the Minister will accept new clause 30 and commit the Government to truly tackling the issues in the private rented sector, including the impact of agency fees. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is not here because he, too, has argued that banning agency fees would somehow lead to higher rents. I look forward to the Minister responding to all those tenants in Scotland who have not found the banning of fees to be a negative experience. What does she think we can learn from that experience?

If the Minister does not yet accept the case for banning fees outright, does she accept that there are fees that can be detrimental and that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene? Alternatively, is she simply saying that if a letting agency wants to charge somebody £700 a time to renew their tenancy, it is fine, as long as they have told them about it? I am sure that is not her intention and that she recognises that people do not shop around for a letting agency: they shop around for a property to try to keep a roof above their family’s heads. Because such costs cause detriment to consumers, they are unacceptable. If the Minister does not accept that they cause detriment, I hope that she will at least accept our amendment that would provide that the Government should carry out research on this issue and commit to action if detriment is proved. Nine million people are waiting on the Minister’s every move to see whether they can keep a roof above their heads, not just in 2014 but in 2015 and beyond. Should we win the next election, we will take action if the Government will not do so now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Let me give an example of the way in which this conflict of interests operates in practice. The example was given to us by a young first-time buyer who, because of her restricted ability to buy a property in the area where she wanted to live, accepted that she would have to take part in a “sale by tender” arrangement, and that she would have to pay an introductory fee of 2.5% of the sale price of the property. She made an offer of £258,000 for a house that was well within the guide price, and therefore committed herself to paying about £6,000 in fees to the estate agent. Her offer was accepted as the highest offer in the sealed-bid process. She then contacted us to say that her offer had not been accepted by the seller, and the agent was putting pressure on her to up her offer to £262,000. If she did not do so, the property would be put back on the market for another “sale by tender” exercise, because the seller wanted more. That was despite the fact that she was the one who had committed herself to paying the fee that the estate agent wanted to charge.

Some Members may think that that is an indication of the overheated London housing market, and the fact that house prices in my constituency have risen by 30% reflects that overheating. However, we are hearing about examples of double charging throughout the country. In the north-west, for instance, a gentleman who tried to buy a house for £45,000 was told that, as well as finding the £45,000 and the fee for the conveyancing, he would have to find £2,880 in order to pay the introductory fee to the estate agent. In the south-west, an estate agent wanted an introductory fee of nearly £6,000 plus VAT from someone who wanted to buy a house for £296,000. I must stress that the sellers of the properties, who do not benefit from the additional £6,000, are also paying a fee for the service.

The Minister had admitted that double charging is a potentially worrying emerging trend which seems to be on the increase, but at every stage in the Bill when we have sought to outlaw this conflict of interests, the Government have voted against our attempts, although the property ombudsman has agreed that the new approach to selling properties

“can also potentially disadvantage the seller. He”—

or she—

“will no doubt have to agree to accept only prospective buyers that follow the agent’s agreement with those prospective buyers and if a prospective buyer declines to submit to paying the fee, he”—

or she—

“will be out of the picture and the seller will have lost an opportunity to sell his house.”

That is what the property ombudsman has told us about the practice.

[Robert Flello]

No doubt the Minister will say that this is an issue of the market, that other estate agents will not do this, and that it will all come out in the wash. The point is, however, that someone who goes out and looks for a house and then finds the one that he wants cannot choose the agent who is dealing with the property. That is why it is so crucial for us to sort this out now, rather than waiting until every single estate agent does the same, as though the market will somehow adjust itself.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I admit that I have been deeply concerned about campaigning on this issue and for our proposals, because I think that it is a bit like telling turkeys how to avoid Christmas. The more we make it clear to estate agents that the Government are currently letting them get away with this behaviour, the more they will engage in it. Indeed, I am sad to report that since February, when we began expressing concern about double charging, an increasing number of estate agent chains throughout the country have been using “sale by tender” processes involving the introductory fee. I must emphasise that we are objecting not to sale by tender per se, but to the fact that people are being charged a fee to be introduced to a property. That is what is causing such concern.

When I first observed that Douglas Allen in Walthamstow was engaging in the practice, I thought that perhaps we had just one rogue estate agent. I hoped that when Phil and Kirstie came to Walthamstow recently to film “Location, Location, Location”, they would take a dim view of it, but I am sorry to say that we are now hearing of cases at Your Move, Ellis and Co. and Reeds Rains. A number of estate agents are picking up the idea that applying such fees is acceptable behaviour, and the damage that that is doing to the interests of both sellers and buyers is growing.

There is a question for us here. We can see that the practice is distorting the housing market. If we want a free and fair market, these conflicts of interests must be resolved, so that sellers can be confident that buyers are always acting in their interests, and buyers can be confident that when they participate in a bid such as this, it is taken seriously. Should we act, or should we wait until the damage to consumers’ interests becomes worse? We tabled amendment 1 in order to make charging two parties a fee to the same transaction a term in a contract that can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair. We believe—as does the property ombudsman—that such charges are indeed unfair, and should be open to challenge.

This comes at a time when there is widespread concern about the estate agent industry, full stop. I accept that it may be another “British value” to complain about estate agents, just as people complain about traffic wardens and, indeed, politicians. We all recognise that we are not immune to that moment in the pub on a Friday night. However, we know that there are serious concerns because of the nature of the housing market. I have been contacted by people who have been told by estate agents that they cannot have access to the lists of housing for sale unless they commit themselves to taking out a mortgage through them, or using their financial advisers or lawyers. That is another clear conflict of interests for the seller.

We need a tough regulatory regime to ensure that we have a fair housing market in England and Wales. We continue to be concerned about the fact that the Government have delegated the monitoring of all estate agents in England and Wales to Powys county council’s trading standards body. A Welsh rural council has been charged with the task of examining the behaviour of nearly half a million estate agents. It should be taking account of the blatant and rampant exploitation of the demand for housing that these charges represent, but when people affected by them have contacted Powys, they have been met with indifference about whether it should be dealing with the issue. The council took over only in April—this may be a new moment—but it is clear that we need to take stronger action before the situation gets out of control.

The Economy and Living Standards

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. This is the last opportunity I will have to speak in a Queen’s Speech debate as a Member of this House. I have to say, however, that the Queen’s Speech we heard last week was not nearly as exciting as the first Queen’s Speech I heard in this House in 1997.

I want to pick up on a few of the comments that have been bandied around by those on the Government Benches, not least the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), whom I have the pleasure, of course, of following. “Tax and spend” is one comment they throw about, but they do not say what that actually means. We can look around our country and our individual constituencies and see what the spend was all about. It was about replacing schools that had not been looked after for tens of years. Many of our schools were Victorian-built, and many of our hospitals had been built at the end of the 19th century, never mind the 20th century.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

Very briefly, as I want to take Mr Speaker’s advice.

[Robert Flello]

I agree with everything my right hon. Friend has said, but she will also remember, as I do, Conservative Members standing up time and again and calling for schools and hospitals in their constituencies; and how they have the shameless gall to say otherwise is beyond me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

We heard a vigorous defence of the Queen’s Speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is surprising that so many Conservative Members have voted with their feet and emptied their side of the Chamber, obviously lacking the confidence to speak up in favour of their own Chancellor.

A central part of the Government’s defence of their economic policies is the challenge they make to the competence of and decisions taken by Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010. I was privileged to be a senior member of the Labour Government throughout the term and I am proud of their achievements. As John Major once shrewdly observed, the only people who never make mistakes are those who never make decisions. No more than any Government, did we get all our judgments right, but overall I believe we made the correct judgments, including on the economy. The criticism the current Government make of us is not just wide of the mark; it fails to take account of the contradictory policy positions they were adopting at the time.

The first charge the Chancellor has often made is that the Labour Government did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, but we did—we had to. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned, one of the scandals of the Thatcher and Major Governments was their palpable neglect of public services. There were hospitals and schools with leaking roofs and buckets everywhere. There were schools where the sun could literally be seen through the open roof. There is not a Conservative constituency in the country where the roofs of its schools and hospitals were not fixed by the last Labour Government, and no Conservative MP complained about that spending at the time.

That brings me to my second point. I have been through what Conservative shadow Chancellors were saying in response to the Budgets and spending reviews between 2000 and 2010. Yes, there are plenty of passages of criticism, in small print, about the levels of borrowing and taxation to which the Conservatives could, and do, point, but if we look at what they were saying about the spending plans that were leading to all those improvements in their constituencies, we find that a very different story emerges. In 2004, they published a medium-term economic strategy, setting out their plans for the years to 2011-12. The Institute for Fiscal Studies published its own commentary on that, saying that if the Conservatives were to win the forthcoming general election, spending would

“still be higher”

under the Conservative plans

“than it was in every year of Labour’s first term”.

At the 2005 general election, the Conservatives’ main pitch, in the face of Labour criticism, was to reassure voters that no significant cuts would take place if they were elected. The Economist newspaper for 14 April 2005 published a major article under the heading “Much ado about nothing: The Conservatives’ spending plans are strikingly similar to Labour’s”. After the 2005 election, the reassurance that the Conservatives would not be cutting public spending continued, but in even more categorical terms. On 3 September 2007, the “ConservativeHome” website proclaimed:

“Tories will match Labour’s spending plans for the next three years”.

It highlighted an article in The Times of the same date, written by the then shadow Chancellor, which stated:

“I can confirm for the first time”—

he solemnly intoned—

“that a Conservative Government will adopt”

the Labour Government’s spending totals for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11.

[Robert Flello]

Does my right hon. Friend also recall that at the same time the Conservatives, to a person, were calling on the then Labour Government to weaken the oversight and weaken the regulation of the banks to allow them greater freedom?

[Mr Straw]

I absolutely confirm that. As we have accepted, we did not regulate the banks and other financial institutes sufficiently, but the Conservatives at the time were demanding, in this Chamber and outside it, not more regulation but less. Just in case readers did not get the point of the then shadow Chancellor’s article in The Times in September 2007, its headline was “Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies”. All the plans for the economy—those of the Conservatives, as much as those of Labour—were knocked badly off course by the global financial crisis. But for all the insinuations we now hear about how Labour ignored the warning signs, there is not a line—not a word—of such predictions in that article, nor anywhere else in what Conservatives were saying at the time.

The Chancellor talks today of Britain’s recovery, and I am delighted that output, after the longest recession in modern history, is now close to where it was six years ago. But although he will not do this, future economic historians will, I believe, judge that part of the reason for the recovery was the wise decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let it also be remembered that, for all the Conservative efforts to rewrite history now, the average level of debt to GDP under Labour was below that of the preceding Conservative Governments and below international averages, not only for the 11 years before the recession took hold, but even when our last two years in power are included. We fixed the roofs, for both sun and storms. By contrast, the Conservatives then were calling simultaneously for lower taxation and lower borrowing but the same spending. How on earth did they think those sums would ever add up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute briefly on the last day of the debate on the Gracious Speech.

The striking thing for me is that the last Queen’s Speech of a Parliament is usually stuffed full of Bills—the last few things that a Government want to get done before a general election—and then there are a load of draft Bills, which are an indication of where that Government want to go if they are lucky enough to secure another term in office.

[Robert Flello]

I recollect that before the 2010 general election, the Conservatives criticised the then Prime Minister for what they called a lightweight Queen’s Speech; by comparison with this one, it looks so heavy as to be unliftable.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and the real issue is that this Queen’s Speech is lacking in both those areas—Bills and draft Bills. Perhaps it is unfair to Her Majesty the Queen to say this, but the only memorable part of her Gracious Speech was her announcing a tax on plastic carrier bags. That is rather telling, because despite all the big issues facing my constituents in Denton and Reddish, there is very little in the Queen’s Speech about tackling the cost of living crisis, nothing to ease the pressure on housing which my constituents face, nothing on the NHS—perhaps that is a blessing in disguise—and no vision for a better Britain.

The complacency from Government Members was striking, because this recovery is unequal. Areas such as Denton and Reddish are struggling. I am not a merchant of doom; there are some good indicators. Unemployment is relatively low, at 3.7%. That is welcome but it is still higher than the 2.8% rate when I entered Parliament in 2005. There is an underlying story of low wages and long hours for people in full-time jobs, and many jobs are part-time, on zero-hours contracts and insecure. Of course, that is utterly self-defeating for the taxpayer, because it results in the working poor, whereby we are paying extra in-work benefits to subsidise low wages.

[Robert Flello]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. He has hit on that insecurity issue yet again. Last weekend, Stoke-on-Trent saw its 10th foodbank opening up, which surely points to the insecurity that exists.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It absolutely does, and it is a stain on our country’s reputation that so many people in work, as well as those who are out of work, have to rely on charity handouts.

Of course, in my constituency, an in-work benefit that has soared in recent years is housing benefit. I now have 1,000 extra claimants in Stockport and 870 extra claimants in Tameside. Those increases are surely a sign of that insecurity and those low wages. In my constituency, wages are 20% lower than the median for the UK. That is why we need Labour’s deal on the national minimum wage and why we need to put in place living wage agreements.

Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I commend Tameside council and, yes, I also commend Stockport council for their efforts to increase the number of apprenticeships, but what we need is a compulsory jobs guarantee, because what really worked for many young people in my constituency was the future jobs fund. It was criminal that this Government axed that very important scheme. We need to upskill the next generation and maximise the benefits of the jobs that have been created in the Manchester city region; in the city centre, in MediaCityUK at Salford Quays and at the airport city. We need to attract new jobs to Tameside and Stockport.

We need to invest in education. It was criminal that many of my schools missed out on Building Schools for the Future, even though my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) signed off the BSF payments for St Thomas More college, Audenshaw school, All Saints school and Reddish Vale technology college. We need that investment, so that those schools have the same quality of educational facilities that we had in Denton community college.

Lastly, there is a chronic need to build more housing. It is good for jobs, but we need affordable housing both to buy and to rent. We need decent homes in the private rented sector, because far too many of them are squalid, frankly. We need more social housing. I commend New Charter Housing Trust Group for its new build—I was lucky enough to cut the first sod at its new site in Audenshaw—but it barely scratches the surface of what is needed.

This Queen’s Speech lacks ambition. I fear that we will have to wait 11 months for a Labour Government and a proper programme for action.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

After six days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, what have we learned? I have learned that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches have been determined to make the points on behalf of their constituents, while Government Members consistently ran out of time.

My hon. Friends have been diligent in pointing out all the items that have been conspicuous by their absence from the Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), for Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—I have listed him already; that is how good his speech was—my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and many more. I apologise to the hon. Friends I have been unable to mention.

We did not get the measures we wanted in the Queen’s Speech. Many hon. Friends mentioned cigarette packaging and smoking in cars, which were not included. There was nothing on border controls and no mention of the national health service. My hon. Friends should not be surprised by the paucity of the Government’s legislative programme, because it is not by accident; it is by design. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid time-consuming legislation that would be difficult for this House to deal with. They want to scrape the barnacles off the bottom of the boat, as Lynton Crosby famously put it, because they do not want anything to get in the way of the image they want to craft ahead of the general election.

This Queen’s Speech is not about rising to the challenges that the public want the Government to confront; it is all about giving the appearance of activity, but not real activity itself. It is about image, not substance. It is about the theatrics of government, not getting on with real reforms. It is also about repeating more and more promises, rather than fulfilling the ones they made in the first place. Look at what they promised on making work pay, again in the Queen’s Speech. Strangely, they made that promise in the 2010 Queen’s Speech. This time they made a promise about cutting red tape, which they also promised to do in 2010. They made a promise this time, as they did in 2010, about balancing the books and eradicating the deficit. We know that the Chancellor’s failure to generate growth for three years after the general election means that they have failed to meet that promise.

Of course, we must not forget one of the most foolhardy promises of all: to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands. In his solemn pledge on that, the Prime Minister said, “no ifs, no buts”. That was what they guaranteed. It is amazing that there was no mention of that pledge in the Queen’s Speech. But promises are difficult. These are tough times and, because of the Chancellor’s failure to get a grip and generate growth early enough, public finances are in a difficult state.

We are going to find times tough in the next Parliament and lower priorities will have to get less funding. What is the reaction of Government Members to these difficult circumstances? Do they knuckle down? Do they redouble their efforts, roll up their sleeves and try to do something about the challenges facing this country? Absolutely not. They switch on to autopilot mode and go into “coasting”, and we end with a legislative programme, such as the one we have, that does not confront the problems that the country faces.

Yes, we hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help small and medium-sized enterprises with late payments, but what about helping businesses with real lending support and the banks that should be helping those businesses get the equity in and get the growth that we need in our economy? We hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help with penalties where the minimum wage is not paid, but what about the real reform strengthening the minimum wage and ensuring that we link it to average earnings to make an appreciable difference? The Government want pensions flexibility. We welcome that, but what about the advice and guidance that those retirees will need in order to avoid problems further down the line? The Government even talk about child care tax relief eventually, but what about 25 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds? That would be possible if the Government only pulled their finger out and collected the bank levy as they are supposed to do.

We do not see these measures because the Government do not understand the challenges that the public face. They do not offer a long-term economic plan. This is a Government obsessed with short-term political calculations—the phony concern of those who are focused more on the appearance of introducing reform than on the reality of undertaking reform.

[Robert Flello]

On pensions, the £5 billion or whatever figure will go into the Treasury from the Government’s proposals will be more than offset when, no doubt under a future Labour Government, the chickens come home to roost and mis-selling scandals hit. It will be a Labour Government who have to pick up the mess.

[Chris Leslie]

That is why we want to see the full detail of the advice and guidance that need to be put in place. The Government do not like hearing it, but these are the questions that have to be answered. Those answers were not in the Queen’s Speech.

It was not a long-term economic plan that we got in the Queen’s Speech, but a set of short-term obsessions focused on political calculations. The Queen took less than 10 minutes to read out the speech that she was given, yet for most of our constituents it offers zero progress on their concerns. The parties in government think that all is fine with the economy—everything is going perfectly well—but how detached from reality can they get?

The Financial Secretary will no doubt speak shortly and she can quote all the economic data she likes, but I have to tell her that for many people this is an economy that is about low pay, zero hours and, for those who are struggling, food banks. She can quote GDP statistics in recent months, but we are seeing an economy where the very wealthiest 1% in society are doing particularly well and seeing their share of the cake grow while the rest of the population are seeing their share shrink further and further. The Government may be satisfied with this state of affairs, but the Opposition are not.

In the remaining 11 months before the general election, we should have a substantial and meaningful legislative programme which tackles some of these problems, rather than the set of headlines and press releases that have been strung together for effect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

What the hon. Lady did not say is that by 2018 the saving ratio will still be double what it was under the Labour Government. That is a rather important piece of information that she failed to tell the House. We are 15 minutes into Treasury questions. When will a Labour MP welcome the GDP numbers?

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the level of bank lending to businesses since May 2010.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

In May 2010, business lending was contracting sharply in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The Government have introduced various measures aimed at improving bank and non-bank lending to businesses, in particular the business bank and the funding for lending scheme. Since 2010, survey evidence has suggested that the credit conditions for businesses have improved significantly and gross lending flows have increased.

[Robert Flello]

The latest funding for lending figures show that, shockingly, net lending to small businesses is down by £2 billion at RBS. Should not a bank that still has huge support from the taxpayer be serving Britain’s small businesses better?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there has been an enormous challenge since the financial crisis. Banks still have a long way to go to work out their balance sheets and to ensure that they are again lending to small businesses. RBS announced recently that it has the single goal of becoming the No. 1 SME bank in the UK. Banks are focused on that issue and it is vital that they are.